Letter from Louis Essen to Carl A. Zapffe
Von Dr. Louis Essen 2008
Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen
zur Ergänzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 – 2004, Kapitel 4.
In: Ricker, Harry H., III.: Letter from Louis Essen to Carl A. Zapffe. In: The General science journal – 5 S.
S. 1-2: "The letter begins by thanking Dr. Zapffe for sending a copy of his paper back book and proceeds to give a summary statement of Essen’s reasons for opposing Einstein’s theory.
On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows:
"Dear Dr. Zapffe,
"I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication, and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless. In my view, these tend to confuse the issue.
"One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It was later published in the Creation Research Quarterly, vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff. – "With best wishes, Sincerely yours" – "L. Essen"
Carl wrote back on April 3, 1984, "Dear Dr. Essen: Your letter of March 25 gave me the kind of reaction that I would get from meeting royalty".
Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!
Siehe hierzu auch: The Special Theory of Relativity: a critical Analysis